Man pulls CCW to stop a fight

[pax]

Moderator Note

Okay. Everyone take ten slow, deep breaths.

This is an important topic. Vital, even.

But the thread will be closed if the discussion is not maintained in a civil manner.

If you feel yourself getting a little too upset, or taking others' comments a bit personally, or being tempted to fling insults and accusations around, go do something else before you post.

Only warning.

pax

 

[win71]

Kinda makes me wonder

How this guy would have behaved had he not been armed.

 

[TC-TX]

Yeah. You...have the right to.....?

Yes, Manedwolf, You DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO... NO ONE IS DISPUTING THIS FACT...

But...

You do NOT have the right to be ignorant of the law.

You do NOT have the right to use a weapon against another illegally.

You do NOT have the right to put a third party's life in jeopardy.

You do NOT have the right to take someones life (even in a SD case, it is still a homicide. a Defense to Prosecution is SD, but it is still Homicide.)

You do NOT have the right to threaten someone with Deadly Force unless under the proper circumstances.


I can go on for pages on things that you do NOT have the right to do when carrying a firearm...

Can YOU answer ALL of them Correctly?

You LIFE may depend on you being able to do so...


MOST Intelligent people who embark upon the CCW journey REALIZE there is MUCH More to it than just the RIGHT... and I applaud them for taking the Right seriously enough to understand the Responsibility as well.

How is the Average Citizen who wishes to carry supposed to learn of the legalities and the intricacies of Carrying a Firearm if not thru training?

YES - you have the right... However, having the Right does not lessen the responsibility that goes along with exercising that right.

 

[carterbeauford]

TOTALLY Disagree!!!

You obviously do not understand the intent of the training - do you?

I do, but one should know their role as a license holder with or without training. It should not require a trip to Gunsite to realize that this is simply not something we do. Perhaps I am expecting too much.

 

[jdl357]

I'm a manager in a large organization and supervise over 200 "service/maintainance" employees. In the last year alone I have had (reported to me) 2 people make statements to other employees like "I have a gun permit, so don't mess with me" or "I have a gun in my car and I'm licensed to use it."
Both of these people have carry permits and have had no training whatsoever (I asked). They should at least be told that "concealed" carry means no one is suppose to know you carry. They have no clue.

 

[TC-TX]

one should know their role as a license holder with or without training. It should not require a trip to Gunsite to realize that this is simply not something we do.

Agreed carterbeauford - unfortunately this is not the case for most of what we do on this planet...

It would make life a lot easier if one (w)hould know their role as a license holder with or without training but you know as well as I that this is not reality...

Hence a minimal level of displayed competency... How else can we validate knowledge knowing that the assumptive approach is destined for failure...

I am certain that it makes for a Safer, better Educated and more Prepared Armed Society...

 

[Manedwolf]

You do NOT have the right to be ignorant of the law.

Then you go to jail if you break it.

You do NOT have the right to use a weapon against another illegally.

Then you get arrested if you do so. And sued.

You do NOT have the right to put a third party's life in jeopardy.

Then you get arrested if you do so. And sued.

You do NOT have the right to take someones life (even in a SD case, it is still a homicide. a Defense to Prosecution is SD, but it is still Homicide.)

Then you get arrested and tried for manslaughter or murder if you do that.

You do NOT have the right to threaten someone with Deadly Force unless under the proper circumstances.

Then you get arrested and sued.

The LAW is clear. You do not have the right to do those things, because they infringe on the rights of others. It is up to you to find out how the LAW applies to you. But that has NOTHING to do with the right to arm yourself and carry concealed! The gun is not the action, it is an object. You are describing ACTIONS that could be done with a gun, with a knife, with a baseball bat, a tire iron, a brick...

Someone can also take a tire iron, go out and kill someone with it. Should Big Government require training in the proper use of tire irons as well, or is it up to the invididual citizen to realize what might be breaking the law?

There is no other definition for it. Mandatory "training" before one can have the rights guaranteed in the second amendment is a sheer leftist philosophy, however you try to flavor it.

 

[TC-TX]

Kinda makes me wonder ...How this guy would have behaved had he not been armed.

Great Question win71!

CCW/CHL training is designed to help you be MORE Tolerant and LESS Antagonistic...

I wonder if this was His position in this altercation???

I suppose the video will tell???

 

[Jeff White]

Mandated training is a slippery slope. I am all for training. But I don't think it should be mandatory.

This is a tough case. The police only have one side of the story. It's no wonder they decided not to press charges. It's also important that we don't revoke this guy's permit without knowing the entire story.

However should the entire story come out and we find that this was what's called a mutual combat situation, felony charges and loss of the permit would be called for.

There isn't any easy boilerplate solution to this problem. There are plenty of people who have successfully completed all kinds of training who don't have the temperment to carry a firearm. All we can do is deal with these things on a case by case basis, based on the facts of the incident.

Jeff

 

[orionengnr]

Let's see... how did that Second Amendment go? Oh yeah; "A well trained, qualified, and licensed militia..."

 

[TC-TX]

There is no other definition for it. Mandatory "training" before one can have the rights guaranteed in the second amendment is a sheer leftist philosophy, however you try to flavor it.

I can assure you Manedwolf - I am the farthest thing possible from a leftist.

I would prefer for you to re-read the posts... No one ever claimed "training" before one can have the rights guaranteed in the second amendment ...

Those are your words.

It has been clearly stated that the Rights Exist Without Training. Period. No one Disputes This Fact.

I was merely pointing out that I BELIEVE that most Intelligent people who embark upon the CCW journey realize that there is MUCH More to it than just the RIGHT... and I applaud them for taking the Right seriously enough to understand the Responsibility as well.

We can agree to disagree on this point.

I can assure you, my Students agree with me... For the same reasons listed by M2 Carbine, they ALL learned a great deal of perspective and insight that they had never even considered before...

And they have all (99% of them) thanked me for the time well spent.

I prefer to look at folks who carry as people willing to learn and gain insight on such an important subject... People whom I consider a Fresh Wellspring as opposed to a stale pond... If person is willing to Learn, they can become knowledgeable and make sound decisions from a place of knowledge. If, on the other hand, a person 'knows it all' and is incapable of opening ones mind to new and powerful information, they are limited in their ability to respond in an appropriate way when confronted with a bad situation.

I would suggest - in this case - from the evidence so far - this individual was severely limited in his ability to respond in an appropriate way when he was confronted with this bad situation.

Of course, YMMV...

 

[pax]

<moderator hat off>

Mild observation: you know, it occurs to me that a man who has somehow reached adulthood without learning not to assault someone with his fists probably won't benefit from being told not to assault someone with his firearm, no matter how much you charge him for the lecture.

pax

 

[>SHOCK<^>WAVE<]

If your in a situation where you have to pull a gun but not fire it in a public
place (not your home), are you as a ccw holder suppose to or required to file a police report ??

I'm thinking if it had to be pulled something criminal must have went on like attempted assault and battery
and your sorta morally obligated to report criminal activity.

 

[CDignition]

Most states require some level of training to get the CCW...some more than others. This is enough in my opinion, if you want more training, then go for it.

As for the altercation, I would guess sometimes it cannot be prevented. Depending on weather the guy felt his life was in danger(He was in fear of the other guy killing him), he may have been justified..

Just reading a news blurb dosent give enough real info to have a meaningful debate on weather he was right or wrong, let alone guys getting all offended at each other over it. Like most jokes "Ya had to be there".

 

[thexrayboy]

Mild observation: you know, it occurs to me that a man who has somehow reached adulthood without learning not to assault someone with his fists probably won't benefit from being told not to assault someone with his firearm, no matter how much you charge him for the lecture.

pax

Bingo. You nailed that one dead on. My late grandfather told me when I was a kid that the kind of person some one is when they finish grade school is usually the kind of person they will always be. Patterns of behavior are set early. He didn't talk a lot but when he did I learned to shut up listen and learn.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

sounds like

unless facts change that this putz losing right to carrry might be good idea. losing a fight gracefully is a good thing

 

[carebear]

People who are going to carry weapons should be responsible and either do their own legal research and/or choose to get training in technique and law.

They should do that because they are legally liable for their actions and decisions.

Fellow shooters and the state should recommend folks get training and it would be nice if it was provided at a reasonable, sustainable (not tax-subsidized, pay as you go) cost. Perhaps by private instructors, ranges, or shooter's organizations offering to help out, out of the goodness of their own heart, single moms, the elderly or others with a real financial need as a way to give back.

Nowhere in there is any sort of "mandate" necessary or in line with our ideals of freedom.

 

[TC-TX]

Mandated training is a slippery slope. I am all for training. But I don't think it should be mandatory.

Jeff, training is compulsory only for (some) people who wish to apply for a license to carry concealed... it does not infringe upon RKBA at all... at least here in Texas...

This is a State-By-State issue and so - IMO - Mandatory is a poor descriptor.

NOW - if you have no compulsory requirement for demonstrated competency prior to license issuance, how can you (as a licensing agency) vouch for the minimum level of knowledge required by CCWers?

I believe it is harmful and potentially deadly to assume issuance alone provides compliance...

 

[Hardware]

I'll get behind psychological evaluation for CCW right after they pass the law mandating all political officeholders must also undergo psychological evaluation with failure barring them from public office forever.

Yep, now I can get that ice skate franchise in Hades I've been speculating on.

 

[gyp_c2]

well...

I would say everyone's right. We still don't need mandated training though. I'd say an orientation would be more palatable, and just as effective...
I agree that a show of basic knowledge should be demonstrated on completion. If you're going to accept that a fee is appropriate then we should get a show and tell from someone qualified as a part of our admission fee

 

[TC-TX]

Mild observation: you know, it occurs to me that a man who has somehow reached adulthood without learning not to assault someone with his fists probably won't benefit from being told not to assault someone with his firearm, no matter how much you charge him for the lecture.

Sorry pax - I must disagree with you.

My experience as an instructor has shown me that people PRIOR TO instruction and people AFTER INSTRUCTION can - very often - take on a whole new perspective for Actions in Public.

Usually based upon the new knowledge of laws, force and conflict resolution that we have shared with them.

We assume everyone out there thinks as we do from the outset.

Experience has shown that most folks Do not.

 

[carebear]

NOW - if you have no compulsory requirement for demonstrated competency prior to license issuance, how can you (as a licensing agency) vouch for the minimum level of knowledge required by CCWers?

I believe it is harmful and potentially deadly to assume issuance alone provides compliance...

TC-TX,

In which state's CCW law does the state actively assert a "minimum level of knowledge" on behalf of the permit holder? And why on earth should they?

In Alaska's permit structure all the state does is passively accept that you sat in a class for 8 hours, met the set shooting standard and passed a background check, which is distinctly different from then asserting any sort of explicit legal "competency" (say, in court or to the public) on your behalf.

Just because you pass a driving test the state doesn't bear responsibility for your driving after you get your license.

In most "shall-issue" locations, shooting test or not, all the state is positively affirming is that you are not legally prohibited from carrying. The other standards are moot as far as the state's culpability goes.

If you later break the law, it's not the state's responsibility. The state can't be sued because you misused your gun so they have no reason to assert anything about you other then your felony status or documented mental incapacity.

 

[Caimlas]

I agree with that. I also believe a psychological and personality exam should be administered as well. I dunno, maybe I'm biased because I see a lot of guys who want to carry guns to show off, act like cops or just be macho.

And what body of people is going to decide that a person isn't crazy, easily angered, or any number of other things? Probably some beaurocrat who doesn't want you to own guns.

I'm a very peaceful person. I only got in two fights in high school, both of which I attempted to de-escelate, and walked away as soon as I could (usually as the 'loser', but simply because I was able to defend myself sufficiently to avoid getting hurt). But, people assume I'm always angry, partially because I probably am agitated (I'm a fairly high stress person who can't stand loud noise and bright indoor lights), and I'm fairly stern and quiet, as well. People assume that i'm the "macho" type simply because I carry and because I don't believe in all that 'emotional' stuff - I'm quite spartan. Additionally, when out and about, I'm as polite and as charming as I can muster - which is quite a bit - simply because grumping, rude people irritate me more than anything else.

But there are sound logical reasons for why I do what I do, and I'm likely to be the last person to start a fight. I've de-escelated a number of fights as well (through talk). But some pencil neck beaurocrat would surely try and use the above as justification for denying me a permit.

I'll stick with "shall issue" permits, thanks. Only thing I can think of worse than a single sheriff having the authority is a board of elected or un-elected beaurocrats making the decision.

 

[pax]

TC-TX ~

Guess I'll have to defer to you on that one. I've never knowingly helped train a man who was prone to committing assault. Those folks don't pass background checks, usually.

While the expected outcome is always an epiphany of sorts, I cannot say with any certainty that anyone I've helped train showed any great surprise at being informed they should not go around attacking people.

pax

 

[tinygnat219]

Slippery Slope

Interesting POVs from the comments I have seen.

VA has a training requirement for it's CHP, something as basic as a Hunter Safety Class will cover the requirement. I took the NRA Basic Pistol Course, and that was more than enough to satisfy the requirement. Of course, these were for technical and safety competency with firearms. For me, not a whole lot was covered for the mental preparation of carrying a concealed firearm. I personally think that some kind of legal course regarding the Escalation of Force, and some training about the responsibility of carrying a concealed firearm is necessary. However, I don't agree that it should be state mandated. When you get your "shall issue" permit from VA, it is the state's understanding that you comprehend the laws and consequences of such a responsibility. It has been up to me to get up to speed and fix whatever deficiencies I saw in myself (like answering the question: "Could I shoot someone if my life, or someone else's were in danger?") The answer is "yes" but it wasn't emphatic for me, I had to sit and think about it. During this introspection, it dawned on me that since I had this permit, I owed the responsibility to myself, my family, and the sheeple around me to ensure that I understood the consequences of my actions and be technically proficient with my firearm of choice. This has led to an amazing attitude change. I don't curse (as frequently) when some idiot cuts me off in a car, I tend to hold back biting comments when idiots do stupid things in stores as I know my words could be used against me in court for instigating a fight, I am generally a calmer person. However, I am also a more alert person and have been able to sidestep several verbal situations that I would have blundered into prior to having this permit and carrying a pistol.

My point is: it's up to each permit holder to ensure that they know the consequences and get the necessary training on their own and read the right material prior to carrying. This is one reason I joined THR, and I have learned much.

I found Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" to be one of the most worthwhile books I have ever read on self-defense. It's a little dated, but the importance of attitude in carrying a concealed weapon is probably more important than the choice of firearm itself.